The seizure of a sitting president from Venezuela. A stiff offer to buy strategic European island. A Board of Peace where membership goes to the highest bidder. Two Middle Eastern allies turning on each other and the discredited neoconservative ‘regime change’ agenda in Iran and elsewhere back on the table. Just when it seemed like global diplomacy couldn’t get any stranger, it has. The recent plotlines may seem surreal, but the players are all human, and the drama is indeed occurring in this dimension. The reality of the old order is being ruptured, perhaps, but there is hope that a new story might emerge from the rubble.
Now that they are in the firing line, with US threats to seize Greenland, Western states are doing some foreign policy ‘soul searching,’ after strategically ignoring international law when it suited them. In a powerful speech Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney critically reflected on the rules of the so-called international order that have been haphazardly applied by powerful states who have been all too willing to turn a blind eye whenever it politically serves. While this issue has been a topic of debate in the Global South for decades, Carney’s critical comments about the complicity of middle power states might point to a possible shift in global affairs.
“We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim,” PM Carney said.
Prime Minister Carney called for a “values based realism,” acting “consistently,” “applying the same standards to allies and rivals” and “creating institutions and agreements that function as described.”
One such institution that has been created, at least on paper, is President Donald J. Trump’s “Board of Peace.” The board, which was first mentioned in a Security Council Resolution on Gaza that was passed late last year, has morphed into a rough blueprint for a US-led institution that would rival the United Nations. While the UN has been largely ineffective in mediating any of the major conflicts that have erupted in recent years – from Sudan to Ukraine and Gaza – critics who acknowledge UN failures in addressing peace and security challenges, have argued that the “Board of Peace” in its current form, is unlikely to be a viable alternative. With President Trump as its chair, able to veto all decisions, a host of dictators invited to the initiative, sub-Saharan African countries excluded entirely, only two European countries joining and Canada now disinvited, it hardly seems an alternative organization to resolve conflicts around the world.
Beyond the borders of Europe, regional power rivalries in the Middle East are unfolding, with former allies the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia using Yemen as their battleground. Diplomatic fractures between the two nations have emerged in recent years, illustrated by their divergent interests in countries such as Sudan and Somalia and different approaches to the Israel-Palestine conflict. For now Saudi Arabia has been able to score a point by quickly thwarting the southerners aligned with the UAE. The separatists wanted to establish total control of the South that shares long borders with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are now in the process of establishing their control in areas that were previously controlled by the UAE. With the UN, the US and the Europeans handballing mediation efforts in Yemen to Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom now has the monopoly over the Yemen issue and is both a party to and now the only ‘referee’ in the conflict.
The crisis in Iran continues, with scores of demonstrators killed, and threats of US and Israeli military action still on the horizon. With no credible democratic opposition inside the country able to offer an alternative, and concern amongst Middle Eastern powers about the consequences of foreign intervention in Iran, regime change seems unlikely for now. But in the current political climate, anything could happen.
In this edition of Diplomacy Now five authors offer analyses of what we are likely to see in the year ahead in conflicts throughout Africa and the Middle East. Professor Shahram Akbarzadeh explores the recent demonstrations in Iran and what increased tensions between Israel and the United States might mean for the Islamic Republic. Analyst and journalist Afrah Nasser writes about the new frontlines in the conflict in Yemen and the Saudi-UAE split that is further fuelling tensions. Sudan experts Dr. Suliman Baldo and Ahmed Kodouda provide an overview of recent events in Sudan and a grim forecast for the future. Former UN mediation advisor Abdul Mohammed looks at the short fallings of the African Union and how it might regain some diplomatic credibility. The edition concludes with a thoughtful piece by Professor Stefan Wolff on the Board of Peace and its implications for the UN.
As with every edition the views expressed by contributors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
Jamal Benomar
Chair of ICDI
Professor Shahram Akbarzadeh covers recent developments in Iran and offers an analysis on the scenarios the year ahead, which will unlikely involve regime change.
“The possible repeat US and Israeli attack on Iran is watched with concern in the region. It would threaten to throw the whole region into a deeper crisis, as the IRGC could follow through with the threat of targeting US assets in the Persian Gulf and beyond,” he writes.
But with international pressure continuing to mount on Iran, “life for ordinary Iranian citizens is becoming increasingly challenging” and there will likely continue to be pressure on the regime.
Yemeni journalist and analyst Afrah Nasser explores the recent rift between Saudi Arabia and the UAE and how it will likely influence the future of Yemen’s conflict.
“Ultimately, 2026 is unlikely to be a year of resolution for Yemen. The question is not whether the war will end, but whether it will continue to be managed through fragmentation, external bargaining, and humanitarian containment. As regional actors recalibrate their priorities and Yemeni institutions remain hollowed out, Yemen risks slipping further into a conflict that no one is actively trying to win — or end,” she writes.
Sudanese scholars and activists Dr Suliman Baldo and Ahmed Kodouda outline a grim picture for Sudan in 2026, where mediation efforts have failed and the economy and basic services of ordinary citizens have collapsed. With neither the Sudan Armed Forces or the Rapid Support Forces able to claim a decisive victory, the frontlines are expanding, with more militias likely to enter the fray.
“Barring any major efforts to converge regional and international consensus on peace in Sudan, the most likely outcome in the coming year is a calcification of the battle front across the central Kordofan region and continued entrenchment of SAF and RSF,” they write.
“Unfortunately, Sudan’s de facto split will not lead to an end to the conflict, but likely the devolution of the fighting within the two rival camps, as competition over resources and power continue to fuel Sudan’s cycle of violence and destruction,” they conclude.
Former UN mediation advisor Abdul Mohammed, offers an honest appraisal of the African Union’s poor performance on conflicts from Sudan to Congo, and suggests the institution must lift its game in 2026 if it is to remain relevant in the continent.
“The challenge before the current leadership is therefore stark. It is not a question of managing institutions, refining processes, or preserving consensus for its own sake. It is a question of whether those at the helm are prepared to exercise authority, take political risks, and defend continental principles when doing so is uncomfortable. Multilateralism, in dark times, is not about convening meetings; it is about drawing lines,” he writes.
Professor Stefan Wolff offers a pithy analysis of US President Trump’s controversial ‘Board of Peace’ plan. The board, developed as part of a US backed UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza, has clearly expanded its draft mandate in such a way to rival the UN itself.
“So, what to make of it all? Is it just another of Trump’s controversial initiatives that he hopes might eventually earn him the Nobel peace prize after all? Is it merely a money-making opportunity for Trump personally, or is it designed for his political and corporate allies, who might benefit from projects implemented by his board of peace? Ultimately, it might be any of these,” he writes.
“The real question needs to be about the consequences for the current system. What Trump is effectively proposing is to set up a corporate version of the UN, controlled and run by him. That he is capable of such a proposal should not come as a shock after 12 months of Trump 2.0,” he adds.
Nelson Mandela
